Wikidata talk:Notability

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Notability.
Use the "Add topic" button in the upper righthand corner to begin a new discussion, or reply to one listed below.

For discussion of the "Exclusion criteria" section of this guideline, please see the /Exclusion criteria subpage.

Previous discussion at Wikidata:Project chat[edit]

See Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Notability.

Pages that created by Newsletter extension (in Newsletter: namespace)[edit]

Wondering if those pages are having benefit on linking em or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to revise criteria regarding Commons categories[edit]

See Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposed_change_to_WD:N_regarding_Commons_categories. -- Jheald (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Criteria on items for structural needs[edit]

The third criteria "It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful" needs to be more precise to exclude arbitrary items. As a low barrier I'd start with:

  • these new items must be instance (instance of (P31)) or subclass (subclass of (P279)) of an established item
  • these new subclasses must have multiple established items as instances (instance of (P31))
  • both requirements are necessary but not sufficient condition for creation in any case

So it can be valid (not in every case) to create new abstract classes to better classify existing items and/or improve the existing classes only step by step. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

--Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux92 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

Looks sensible to me. − Pintoch (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • So no "wife of", because her item has no instances. Sounds like bureaucracy.
    --- Jura 11:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
an item "wife of" would probably be no subclass but an instance of family relationships or alike --JakobVoss (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you give an example of items which would be accepted with the current criteria and refused in your proposal? (an item about a wife has most probable instance of (P31) human (Q5) by the way, in addition to spouse (P26)). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Even for structural needs that are implied by instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) I disagree with the criteria. We have many items with no instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) claim. I think it's okay to create a superclass for an item to satisfy subclass of (P279). ChristianKl () 13:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No need is implied by constraints, it's the other way round: new item for structural needs (not justified by sitelinks or by reliable sources) should at least be instance of an established item or subclass of an established item and get its own instances. -- JakobVoss (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's take one example of an item I created for a structural need: anatomical direction (Q25624674). It has a superclass and it has subclasses but it has no instances. I don't see how the absence of instances should be ground for it not existing.
In this case it's relatively easy to find direction (Q2151613) as a superclass but I don't think that it's always easy to create superclasses and creating superclasses means making more ontological commitments.
I think it's our current practice that if John Doe creates an item about himself we usually delete that item. If John Doe is however the wife of Jane we consider that link to make it more valuable to have the John Doe item because it allows the item of Jane to express more information. That's currently justified under the concept of "structural need". ChristianKl () 16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we are talking about different things. Articles about people have other and additional criteria anyway. By the way your example of justifying the notability of a woman because she is wife of someone is problematic. As my proposal does not sound convincing, I'll try some analysis first. -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles. Wikidata has no articles and therefore concerns about what kind of articles are notable aren't relevant. Wikidata has items (and an item implies a page).
In the linked data world we use items to express who someone wife happens to be instead of storing the name in a string. In all case where it would make sense to store the name in a string in a normal database we store it as items in Wikidata we want the ability to create an item for that purpose. ChristianKl () 15:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think many good items created now under the "structural need" policy would fail this test. Isn't the structural requirement the justification to create items for works that are used as references for other statements? Similarly regarding items for authors of those works, as well as people created under the relationship cases mentioned above. Many positions ("mayor of XYZ" etc) would never have "instances" as we don't use P31 for people and their positions or occupations, and yet these specific positions are necessary for the wikidata data model to hold that information. So what do we really mean by the "structural need" notability requirement? I think (A) if there is a data modeling requirement for the item (the associated information is about an existing item but it cannot be fully modeled with properties on the item itself), or (B) the new item provides some kind of intermediate link between existing items (there is a statement on an existing item that would have this item as value, and this item should have a statement with another existing item as value - this is I think a generalization of your P31/P279 case above). Does that make sense as a more specific definition of structural need? Or is it still too general? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Recently I created DNA segment (Q43029561) as subclass for Numt (Q7069705). I think it's okay to create an item like that given that "nuclear mitochondrial DNA segment" is quite obviously a subclass of "DNA segment". I don't think there should be a requirement in a case like this to think about what the superclass of DNA segment happens to be. Yes, there's more that can be done to develop the new item and maybe search for other subclasses but that's not work that has to be done immediately. When someone else needs the item they can continue the work. ChristianKl () 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Main goal[edit]

Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base. What is "general knowledge base"? What is its target audience? Who are its consumers? On what page is all this written? --Fractaler (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia for such general questions instead of asking them here. -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked not only Wikipedia. And Wikipedia replied: "sorry, I do not know. Maybe, you know? --Fractaler (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Start reading at knowledge base (Q593744). “General” means that there is no limitation to a particular topic. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I know what is knowledge base (Q593744). no limitation to a particular topic: so, I can create a topic, for example, "10011101011010011100111011"?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fractaler (talk • contribs) at 17:33, 12 November 2017‎ (UTC).
No. “No limitation to a particular topic” is totally not the same as “Anything is allowed”; you are familiar to the notability criteria which define boundaries we have agreed on. Please mind that knowledge refers to something which is widely accepted and thus typically verifiable in external sources. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I can change the statement of page to a more precise one: to serve as a knowledge base, which define boundaries we have agreed on? --Fractaler (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is a secondary database [1], that means only data which is already in external sources can be added to Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So, we have, Wikidata is: 1) secondary database, 2)knowledge base. What is true?--Fractaler (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Where is the contradiction? --Succu (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Where I claimed that there is a contradiction? I asked, what is true? You know? --Fractaler (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
For me it looks like you want to apply the principle of bivalence (Q2110857). Or not? --Succu (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It does not matter what is true. Wikidata does not collect truth but referenced statements. -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata at this point is effectively Wikipedia metadata. There projects for doing more, but outside of biographies there's little progress. I got pushback with UPC claiming "its too many items" (max 1 trillion). —Dispenser (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
For some users of ru-wikipedia, such questions looked, I think, as an encroachment on their property. I hope this is not perceived here. I just want to find now a clear definition of the terms used here and finally understand who/what it is intended for (the target audience) items of Wikidata. Wikidata does not collect truth but referenced statements: Wikidata is a just collector? Collector of a referenced statements? Collects for whom? Or for what? Just like that, with nothing better to do? Is there an ultimate goal, a consumer of items? Wikidata at this point is effectively Wikipedia metadata: so, this is all for Wikipedia, is it a consumer? --Fractaler (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is database which collects referenced statements with the goal that anybody in the world can consume open free data. Anybody in the world can also add new data to Wikidata. In case data of the same domain already exist in Wikidata, it can be added directly. In case it is a new domain, community consensus has first to be reached. --Pasleim (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
So, the Wikidata and Wikipedia have the same main goals? --Fractaler (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely, WD is just a database for the wikiverse, which consist mainly of wikipedias, but other projects as well. It's a collection of referenced data, it should be a collection of verified data, but unfortunately too many bots included too many rubbish and doublettes, so it's less useful now, but for the main purpose, to host interwikilinks, it's still useful in general (although LSbot is so keen on creating useless doublettes through his botpedias, that this goal is going a bit off now). Sänger (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
WD is just a database for the wikiverse: are the Wikidata's properties (P*) a "just a database for the wikiverse"? collection of referenced data: Wikipedia is also a "collection of referenced data". main purpose, to host interwikilinks: if this is the main goal, why did the Wikidata start linking data to each other? Why give own links, own images, own definitions, creates items that do not have a interwikilinks, etc.? The state in the state?
Try reading e.g. Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledgebase (Q18507561), Fractaler. --Succu (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried. When I read the page I found on the link. It said: "We look forward to new and innovative applications due to Wikidata and its development as a knowledgebase": where "general knowledge base"? Just "knowledgebase"? "With Wikipedia's data becoming cleaned and integrated in a single location, opportunities arise for many new applications": are there only Wikipedia data in the Wikidata? Also, "Wikidata's goal is to allow data to be used both in Wikipedia and in external applications", "the community is as dynamic as Wikidata itself, based not on status or membership but on the common goal of turning Wikidata into the most accurate, useful, and informative resource possible", "There is no question this must include data that can be searched, analyzed, and reused": can I now find in the Wikidata, for example, "first cosmonaut"? Or, for example, what is the name of "one of seven equal parts of a whole" (seventh (Q42879824))? Allow the data of the Wikis to answer the question, for example, "Great Pyramid of Giza" is one of seven equal parts of "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World or not?" --Fractaler (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Counting them is not enough, Fractaler? What do you want to express? A cardinality constraint? --Succu (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)